Revolution is a result of to many of a population feeling that they're being exploited mixed with leadership that helps motivate them to take action. The motives of the leadership can always be questioned, but without that large disaffected population there wouldn't be much in the way of an army for those leaders to make use of.
The internal revolutions in France, England, Russia, Germany, China, Vietnam, and a whole host of other countries all were built on this kind of social unrest through wealth and opportunity disparity. In some cases (like Germany) the group holding the population down was cited as being external (through the terms of the Treaty of Versailles), but for all of the rest, the 'existing order' had taken too much for themselves to the point that the population couldn't ignore it, and wouldn't reform, so revolution occurred.
I think that certain irresponsible people on the Right have done a very good job of smearing the word, such that a lot of poor and lower-middle class voters demonize the concept of being liberal when it's more likely that liberal policies would actually personally benefit them more than corresponding conservative policies.
It saddens me when issues like race, sexual orientation, and abortion, issues that probably won't personally affect the vast majority of voters, manage to be used as wedge-issues to get voters to vote against their direct interests.
That's what always cracks me up about the arguments made for or against a form of monetary policy, people argue against a fringe extreme without actually looking at what the goal is.
Very few conservatives argue for the complete abolition of all social services and safety-nets such that everyone literally is on their own. Sure, some do, but not the majority.
Very few liberals argue for the complete abolition of corporations and the ability to accumulate private wealth. Sure, some do, but not the majority.
All we're arguing is to what degree we limit the accumulation of personal wealth, and to what degree we provide social services. I happen to agree that corporations should not have so many individual rights as they currently enjoy, and I also believe that corporate officers that have subdivided their companies up into small entities to attempt to limit liability should not be free to do so. I also believe that there should be limits on the amount of financial assistance offered to those unemployed that have children, and that many things that qualify for assistance should not do so, and that continuing to receive benefits should be somewhat contingent on proving that one is making a concerted effort to find work.
I'm sure that some disagree with me. That's fine. I don't want to hear how some view that could be interpreted as possibly relating to mine is bad, I want to hear about how someone's different idea and its merits, and after we've established pros, let's look at cons.
He might have already been a convicted felon, and if he was then even possessing it could be a felony.
I wonder if the definition of use is a matter of carrying the firearm while engaging in an illegal activity (ie, drug trafficking and distribution) even if his intention in carrying the firearm was to prevent someone from mugging him and taking the cash he had on his person.
Perhaps, but then you have the whole problem that Facebook is based in a different state than the NYPD, so now you have to figure out where to sue them, and then you get into the whole thing that click-through Terms of Service and End User License Agreements may not entirely be enforceable.
Facebook can claim that it's against their ToS all they want, but if they don't have a real mechanism to put a stop to it then all of the claims of ToS violations are meaningless.
Think about it another way, if a person is banned from a retail store because of inappropriate but not necessarily illegal behavior, there's not a whole lot that the retail chain can do to enforce that ban, especially if they're huge and compartmentalized. It's difficult to enforce a ban even at the store that an infraction(s) occurred at, let alone the next nearest stores and the rest of the stores in the municipal area. It's even harder when those stores are open extended hours with more than one shift as all big-box stores are now, and staff turnover means that keeping the staff aware of the issue is itself difficult.
This isn't condoning the actions of the NYPD, but I always figured that it was common sense, don't write down or otherwise document what you don't want others to know or find out about...
Well, write one that becomes ubiquitous, quality, and that people depend on, and you too can probably hover near-bankruptcy for a decade before people decide to reward you with five-figures.
In all seriousness, some of those funding systems like Kickstarter seem like they'd be a good fit for many open-source projects. Pay a programmer for a couple of years or pay two programmers for a year to get a fresh major release version paid-for.
Hell, my wife told me a story, she was a new undergrad at MIT and the new residents in the dorm were hanging out in the lounge getting to know one another. They got on the topic of foreign languages since there were a lot of kids from other countries or who had traveled fairly extensively, and when one boy was asked how many languages he knew, he replied, "computer, or other?" which drew lambasting from his fellow nerds at arguably one of the nerdiest universities in the world.
Computer languages are not interpersonal communication languages, and they should not be treated as such. That doesn't mean that I necessarily agree with the foreign language requirements for college admittance (ie, if EVERYONE is supposed to go to college at a given school whether they actually should or not, then foreign language is taught to the lowest-common-denominator and no one learns it well) but treating things that aren't spoken or written human languages as such is stupid.
Yet, those rapid release cycle groups are becoming problematic. Case in point, Instructure Canvas. Three week release cycle, significant dependency on third-party repositories and on patches to stock components, and yet doesn't support the current-stable OS, relying on an old-stable. Also takes 90+ hours a week just to keep it running properly.
Instructure is trying to get people to use Instructure's cloud hosting, not to use a self-hosted model. I expect that contributes to their customers' migration to the Instructure-hosted version even at $10/student.
There was an era, probably inherited from the big-iron computing model, where we strived for stability and long uptimes. We didn't install things that we didn't need (with the exception of Fortune perhaps) and locked-down the box at the network stack. Granted, it required a lot of knowledge at the beginning to make sure that the box was indeed secure, but we were proud of setting up a good, usable box that didn't need a lot of maintenance after the fact.
I guess that era is now gone, with rapid-release and lots of little things constantly needing the system to restart.
As stupid as the Boston thing was, this is even dumber if these 'cameras' are what I think they are.
If a solar-path pinhole camera is designed right then it has no moving parts once it's assembled and the film is loaded. It literally just lets light in through a pinhole, so it can track bright things like the sun based on where the little bit of light through the pinhole strikes the flim as the planet rotates.
At least the Boston thing had wires and power. This is literally a box with a hole in it.
Or, since everyone has everyone else by the balls because of the way our patent system works, we could reform it so that software patents are either extremely hard to get, or to where they have a painfully-short shelflife...
Well, we'd already convinced the Soviets that Nixon was a lunatic that was so unstable that he could preemptively launch a nuclear strike against them; I'm not entirely surprised that they armed their space station.
Wasn't this in the era when we convinced the Soviets that our president was really insane and could or would launch a preemptive nuclear strike on them?
They did cite in the article that the round chosen was specifically meant to tumble on impact, doing significant internal damage. At least that's the theory. I don't think any bears have had to be shot in one's personal defense by cosmonauts or astronauts on landing.
Granted, you're not stuck in the middle of undeveloped wilderness in Asia with a very real potential for being killed for food after having crawled out of a now-dead space capsule either.
Slashdot Mirror
And I'm sure that if push came to shove, those people would not be at the front of the revolution, despite their hawkishness.
Revolution is a result of to many of a population feeling that they're being exploited mixed with leadership that helps motivate them to take action. The motives of the leadership can always be questioned, but without that large disaffected population there wouldn't be much in the way of an army for those leaders to make use of.
The internal revolutions in France, England, Russia, Germany, China, Vietnam, and a whole host of other countries all were built on this kind of social unrest through wealth and opportunity disparity. In some cases (like Germany) the group holding the population down was cited as being external (through the terms of the Treaty of Versailles), but for all of the rest, the 'existing order' had taken too much for themselves to the point that the population couldn't ignore it, and wouldn't reform, so revolution occurred.
Where?
I think that certain irresponsible people on the Right have done a very good job of smearing the word, such that a lot of poor and lower-middle class voters demonize the concept of being liberal when it's more likely that liberal policies would actually personally benefit them more than corresponding conservative policies.
It saddens me when issues like race, sexual orientation, and abortion, issues that probably won't personally affect the vast majority of voters, manage to be used as wedge-issues to get voters to vote against their direct interests.
That's what always cracks me up about the arguments made for or against a form of monetary policy, people argue against a fringe extreme without actually looking at what the goal is.
Very few conservatives argue for the complete abolition of all social services and safety-nets such that everyone literally is on their own. Sure, some do, but not the majority.
Very few liberals argue for the complete abolition of corporations and the ability to accumulate private wealth. Sure, some do, but not the majority.
All we're arguing is to what degree we limit the accumulation of personal wealth, and to what degree we provide social services. I happen to agree that corporations should not have so many individual rights as they currently enjoy, and I also believe that corporate officers that have subdivided their companies up into small entities to attempt to limit liability should not be free to do so. I also believe that there should be limits on the amount of financial assistance offered to those unemployed that have children, and that many things that qualify for assistance should not do so, and that continuing to receive benefits should be somewhat contingent on proving that one is making a concerted effort to find work.
I'm sure that some disagree with me. That's fine. I don't want to hear how some view that could be interpreted as possibly relating to mine is bad, I want to hear about how someone's different idea and its merits, and after we've established pros, let's look at cons.
He might have already been a convicted felon, and if he was then even possessing it could be a felony.
I wonder if the definition of use is a matter of carrying the firearm while engaging in an illegal activity (ie, drug trafficking and distribution) even if his intention in carrying the firearm was to prevent someone from mugging him and taking the cash he had on his person.
Perhaps, but then you have the whole problem that Facebook is based in a different state than the NYPD, so now you have to figure out where to sue them, and then you get into the whole thing that click-through Terms of Service and End User License Agreements may not entirely be enforceable.
Facebook can claim that it's against their ToS all they want, but if they don't have a real mechanism to put a stop to it then all of the claims of ToS violations are meaningless.
Think about it another way, if a person is banned from a retail store because of inappropriate but not necessarily illegal behavior, there's not a whole lot that the retail chain can do to enforce that ban, especially if they're huge and compartmentalized. It's difficult to enforce a ban even at the store that an infraction(s) occurred at, let alone the next nearest stores and the rest of the stores in the municipal area. It's even harder when those stores are open extended hours with more than one shift as all big-box stores are now, and staff turnover means that keeping the staff aware of the issue is itself difficult.
...what you don't want want other people to read?
This isn't condoning the actions of the NYPD, but I always figured that it was common sense, don't write down or otherwise document what you don't want others to know or find out about...
Well, write one that becomes ubiquitous, quality, and that people depend on, and you too can probably hover near-bankruptcy for a decade before people decide to reward you with five-figures.
In all seriousness, some of those funding systems like Kickstarter seem like they'd be a good fit for many open-source projects. Pay a programmer for a couple of years or pay two programmers for a year to get a fresh major release version paid-for.
Only if we re-theme the site to resemble Rammstein album artwork.
So, SH3 ASM is the Esperanto of programming languages?
IE, It's a world-languge with very specific rules, and only about 1500 people use it?
You're the exception though. For most people, knowing how a computer works doesn't really benefit them very much.
Hell, my wife told me a story, she was a new undergrad at MIT and the new residents in the dorm were hanging out in the lounge getting to know one another. They got on the topic of foreign languages since there were a lot of kids from other countries or who had traveled fairly extensively, and when one boy was asked how many languages he knew, he replied, "computer, or other?" which drew lambasting from his fellow nerds at arguably one of the nerdiest universities in the world.
Computer languages are not interpersonal communication languages, and they should not be treated as such. That doesn't mean that I necessarily agree with the foreign language requirements for college admittance (ie, if EVERYONE is supposed to go to college at a given school whether they actually should or not, then foreign language is taught to the lowest-common-denominator and no one learns it well) but treating things that aren't spoken or written human languages as such is stupid.
Correct. Right now I'm more thinking of the syslog server. Kinda needs to be running.
Yet, those rapid release cycle groups are becoming problematic. Case in point, Instructure Canvas. Three week release cycle, significant dependency on third-party repositories and on patches to stock components, and yet doesn't support the current-stable OS, relying on an old-stable. Also takes 90+ hours a week just to keep it running properly.
Instructure is trying to get people to use Instructure's cloud hosting, not to use a self-hosted model. I expect that contributes to their customers' migration to the Instructure-hosted version even at $10/student.
When things are that critical usually there's more than one production box, and usually there are development and testing boxes too.
There was an era, probably inherited from the big-iron computing model, where we strived for stability and long uptimes. We didn't install things that we didn't need (with the exception of Fortune perhaps) and locked-down the box at the network stack. Granted, it required a lot of knowledge at the beginning to make sure that the box was indeed secure, but we were proud of setting up a good, usable box that didn't need a lot of maintenance after the fact.
I guess that era is now gone, with rapid-release and lots of little things constantly needing the system to restart.
I guess the people that used to read Time Magazine and Readers' Digest are the new target audience of Slashdot.
After all, we could have links to scientific papers or at least their abstracts written by actual scientists who studied the phenomena.
As stupid as the Boston thing was, this is even dumber if these 'cameras' are what I think they are.
If a solar-path pinhole camera is designed right then it has no moving parts once it's assembled and the film is loaded. It literally just lets light in through a pinhole, so it can track bright things like the sun based on where the little bit of light through the pinhole strikes the flim as the planet rotates.
At least the Boston thing had wires and power. This is literally a box with a hole in it.
Or, since everyone has everyone else by the balls because of the way our patent system works, we could reform it so that software patents are either extremely hard to get, or to where they have a painfully-short shelflife...
Well, we'd already convinced the Soviets that Nixon was a lunatic that was so unstable that he could preemptively launch a nuclear strike against them; I'm not entirely surprised that they armed their space station.
Wasn't this in the era when we convinced the Soviets that our president was really insane and could or would launch a preemptive nuclear strike on them?
They did cite in the article that the round chosen was specifically meant to tumble on impact, doing significant internal damage. At least that's the theory. I don't think any bears have had to be shot in one's personal defense by cosmonauts or astronauts on landing.
Also less stopping-power and fewer options.
Granted, you're not stuck in the middle of undeveloped wilderness in Asia with a very real potential for being killed for food after having crawled out of a now-dead space capsule either.